N. MOHANAN versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 920 · Decided: 20-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
N.MOHANAN 
...
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 20, 1996 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.J 
Kera/a Secretariat Subordinate Se1Vice Special Rules : Rule 7 
c 
Service Law-Select List-Right of candidates on panel-Kera/a 
Secretariat Subordinate Service-Recrnitment of Legal :Assistant Grade-
II-Select list-Petitioner's name included in the list but he was not ap-
pointed-Writ seeking direction for appointment-Petitioner appointed 
pursuant to interim direction of Court-Subsequently another Notification 
issued inviting applications for appointment to post of Legal Assistant and 
D panel already prepared cancelled-In these circumstances High Court held 
that the appointment of the petitioner, though under the directions of the 
Court, could not be regularised-AppeaHleld, High Court rightly negatived 
fhe contention that even though the petitioner has no right to be appointed 
yet he should be regularised as he was appointed on the basis of order of 
E 
Court provisionally-Appointment by interim order does not create any right 
nor the petitioner gets any right to regularisation on that basis-The High 
Court has not committed any e1Tor nor announced any wrong principle of law 
warranting interference. 
Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. Chairman Banking Service Recrnitment Board 
F & Ors., AIR (1996) SC 976, held inapplicable. 
Union of India & Ors. v. lshwar Singh Khatri & Ors., [1992] Supp. 3 
SCC 84; Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India, [1991] 2 SCR 567; Babita 
Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 268; Union 
G 
Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh & Ors., [1993] 1 SCC 154; Nagar 
Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, AIR (1987) SC 847; State 
of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Narwaha & Ors., [1974] 1SCR165; State 
/ 
of Bihar & Ors. v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and 
Ors., [1994] 1SCC126; Dr. MA. Haque v. Union of India, [1993] 2 SCC 
213 and Surendra Kumar Gyani v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1993) SC 115; 
H referred to. 
920 
M. MO HANAN v. STATE 
921 
' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) A 
No. 24398 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.96 of the Kerala High 
Court in O.P. No. 13328 of 1992. 
T.L.V. Iyer, P. Santhalingam and K.V. Sreekumar for the Petitioner. B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment of the 
Kerala High Court, made on November 22, 1996 in O.P. NO. 13328/92. 
c 
The petitioner therein, while working as an AITT>istant in the 
Economics and Statistics Department, had applied for recruitment as 
Legal Assistant Grade II by transfer under Kerala Secretariat Subordinate 
Service Special Rules (for short, the 'Rules'). Rule 7 of the Rules 
prescribes the method of appointment to the post of category 7, viz., Legal D 
Assistants, Grade II, (i) by direct recruitment; or (ii) appointment from 
Assistant Tamil Translators, and Assistant Kannada Translators; or (iii) 
appointment or promotion from any other category in Kerala Secretariat 
Subordinate Service; or (iv) transfer from any category in any Department 
under the Government or in the service of the High Court of Kerala. 
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner and others applied for appointment by E 
transfer as legal Assistant. Rules of rotation and quota have been 
prescribed in the Rules. Applicat:ons were made through Departments, 
written test was conducted on August 8, 1989 and merit list was prepared 
on October 23, 1989 for filling up one post of Legal Assistant, Grade II by 
transfer from other Departments. The petitioner was included, at No. 13, F 
in the merit list. Though vacancies were existing, he was not appointed. 
Therefore, he filed a writ petition for direction for appointment. Pursuant 
to the interim direction, he came to be appointed Oll October 15, 1992. By 
Notification dated December 15, 1992 applications were called for to fill 
up the post of Legal Assistant, grade II from other Departmental can-
didates. Consequently, the waiting list was cancelled. It was contended that G 
the list prepared in 1989 was still in operation. It was not intended that the 
list will be restricted to a particular period. The petitioner was appointed 
to the existing vacancy pursuant to the direction. Therefore, he is required 
to be regularised irrespective of the notification published on December 
15, 1992 calling for applications from other departments. In this back- H 
922 
SUPR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.